IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
R.K. Overseas - Appellant
Versus
Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8900 of 2021 & CM Appls. 27657 of 2021, 34449 of 2021
Decided On : 21-11-2022
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This writ petition is directed against the communication dated 29.07.2021 [hereafter referred to as "impugned communication"], passed by respondent no.1 i.e., Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai Zonal Unit.
2. Notice in the writ petition was issued on 24.08.2021.
2.1. Since then, pleadings in the writ petition stand completed.
3. The respondent nos.1 to 3/revenue [hereafter referred to as "official respondents"] pursuant to the various orders of this Court, have filed several additional affidavits.
4. Rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner in the matter.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length.
6. The submissions on behalf of the petitioner have been advanced by Ms Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel, while Mr Satish Kumar, learned senior standing counsel made submissions on behalf of official respondents/revenue.
7. The broad facts which have emerged in the matter are as follows:
8. The respondent no.1 issued the impugned communication to the banker of the petitioner i.e., IndusInd Bank Limited [hereafter referred to as the "bank"], which in substance, prevented the bank from making any debit entries in the account maintained with it by the petitioner.
8.1. Furthermore, it was clearly indicated in the impugned communication, that no "outward transactions" would be permitted in the said account, until further communication was received in that behalf from respondent no.1.
8.2. A request was made via the same communication to the petitioner's banker, to provide KYC documents and bank statement, albeit from the date when the account was opened till the date when the impugned communication was issued.
9. It is this, which brought the petitioner to the Court.
10. The petitioner has assailed the impugned communication on the ground, that it has been issued without the authority of law.
10.1. Inter alia, the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 [in short "Act"] were adverted to, on behalf of the petitioner.
11. Upon the official respondents/revenue filing a counter-affidavit [and other additional affidavits] in the matter, what emerged was, that according to the official respondents/revenue, the petitioner had illegally availed duty drawback, against overvalued exports.
11.1. The stand of the official respondents/revenue is, that based on the intelligence developed by DRI, Mumbai, it surfaced that the petitioner was part of a syndicate, which was involved in fraudulent/unlawful availment of duty drawback, by taking recourse to bogus dummy Importer Exporter Codes ["IECs"].
11.2. The IECs, according to the official respondents/revenue, were fraudulently obtained by misleading certain "innocent persons."
12. The official respondents/revenue have alleged, that the syndicate has obtained 124 IECs, which represent exports worth Rs.1960 crores, and in the process, availed, albeit illegally, Rs.52 crores as duty drawback.
12.1. As indicated above, the official respondents/revenue allege, that the petitioner is a member of the syndicate.
13. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the more specific allegation is, that it had exported, in June, 2021 "Ready Made Garments made of Man Made Fiber Boys Woven Shirts", against 26 shipping bills.
13.1. The FOB value represented by these 26 shipping bills, even according to the petitioner, is Rs.20,92,85,278.50/-.
13.2. Against this, the petitioner, concededly, has lodged a duty drawback claim amounting to Rs.63,71,452/-.
14. The petitioner has admittedly obtained duty drawback against 20 shipping bills, out of a total of 26 shipping bills, upon the same being sanctioned by the official respondents/revenue.
14.1. The duty drawback sanctioned against 20 shipping bills amounts to Rs.49,23,635/-.
15. Thus, what remained to be processed, were 6 shipping bills, which represent duty drawback amoun
Duty drawback payments are deemed never allowed if the sale proceeds are not received within the time specified by law.
The duty drawback availed by the petitioner was required to be refunded as the export proceeds were not received, and the provisions of the Customs Act and Drawback Rules were applicable in determini....
Provisional attachment under Section 83 of GST Act invalid without proper officer forming and recording opinion, based on tangible material, that it is necessary for revenue protection prior to order....
Provisional attachment of bank accounts under GST Section 83 is invalid absent recorded opinion based on tangible material showing necessity to protect revenue; strict compliance mandatory, non-adher....
The blocking of an electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules requires independent reasoning and a proper legal basis; actions taken on borrowed satisfaction without pre-decisional hea....
The invocation of Rule 86A to block an Electronic Credit Ledger requires the authorities to fulfill strict preconditions, including providing valid reasons based on independent inquiry, and cannot re....
Duty drawback on deemed exports is available without needing to furnish actual customs duty payment evidence if All Industry Rates are specified, irrespective of prior cenvat credit claims.
The court held that blocking a taxpayer's Electronic Credit Ledger requires a valid independent assessment and adherence to natural justice, specifically pre-decisional hearings and recording of reas....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.